Is it reasonable to believe that a personal god does not exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
At least until said god reveals him/herself to you personally? General revelation such as the nature of the physical universe cannot get us beyond the idea of a creator to a creator that can be related to in some manner analogous to the way we relate to the persons we know in day-to-day life.

And it doesn’t really add anything to say that the creator communicates through other agents like members of a church, because it keeps us from being able to distinguish between the personal agency of the members of the church and the supposed personal agency of the creator. It’s possible that said members have misinterpreted their experience (that they suppose to be a personal revelation from the creator), and there’s no way to discount that possibility by examining their experience for yourself, and no original copy of guaranteed personal revelation from the creator to compare it to in any case.
Piggy backing a little bit on what JRKH said in #19, it seems to me that you’re being a little too free in mixing different senses of “personal”. (For example “personal” sometimes has a connotation of individualism, as in “your own personal god”.)

I’ll probably have more to say, but I’m rather short on time today.
 
JRKH,
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Very well understood.
 
Unlike what one previous poster said, “belief” is not different from “knowledge.”
Oddly enough, philosophy, science, and language have discriminated between the two for millennia.
If it were, none of the world as we know it could function, since very little of what we “know” has been proven individually to us. We base our knowledge on human faith and with religion, Divine Faith.
Well, not quite: we presume a great deal, and frequently elevate those presumptions by lazily describing them as “knowledge”, but they are still beliefs.

When we base our understanding upon someone else’s research, that is not knowledge, but faith; when we base our expectations upon prior performance, that is not knowledge, but faith; when we base our belief upon inference from limited data, that is not knowledge, but faith.
 
I heard something similar in a class I once took.

True.
Somewhere in the late middle ages belief began to be associated with the irrational. Study up on Averroes and Averoistic philosophy.

So we know God exists. It is knowledge that we have, which is supplemented with much more belief/knowledge. It is not a dichotomy, as liberals would have us believe. (This is a liberal truism) Belief is not irrational, but based on rational knowledge. Faith can not be irrational or it is superstition.

It is the dichotomy between belief/knowledge that causes liberals to make belief irrational, and therefore entirely subjective. That is why there can be no objective Truth.

But that is false. Belief is an ordinary human system of knowledge. Knowledge is based on belief (although we would call it human faith.) Divine Faith is a gift from God. Yet it is necessary for us to have Divine Faith in order to have knowledge of God. That knowledge of God is TRUE knowledge, not irrational belief.
 
It is most unreasonable. The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from: order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence.

But the history of Christ Himself is factual – Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12]. In that very personal curing of ailments, and raising from the dead, Jesus made plain that His suffering, crucifixion and death were to redeem humanity from Original Sin and enable salvation for each one of us.

The facts of Jesus miracles as the Son of God were recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
BELIEF. The acceptance of something as true on a trustworthy person’s word. It differs from faith only in the stress on confidence in the one who is believed. Moreover, belief emphasizes the act of the will, which disposes one to believe, where faith is rather the act of the mind, which assents to what is believed.

CERTITUDE. Firm assent of the mind to a proposition without fear of error. It implies clear knowledge that the evidence for the assent excludes even the possibility of error.

Fr Thomas Dubay:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, *Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 82-4].
 
Oddly enough, philosophy, science, and language have discriminated between the two for millennia.
You are correct, although belief is a necessary condition of knowledge; just not a sufficient condition.
Well, not quite: we presume a great deal, and frequently elevate those presumptions by lazily describing them as “knowledge”, but they are still beliefs.
Having dealt with most of the posters you are interacting with, they can give you justifications for their beliefs for the personal nature of God. Whether or not those justifications have sufficient warrant to raise that belief to the level of knowledge is something that can be debated.
When we base our understanding upon someone else’s research, that is not knowledge, but faith;
Probably too stark of a contrast, even for Aquinas. We may have very good reasons to trust the research of an expert in the field, some of which we can independently verify. Even so, it does not make faith irrational. I don’t find faith and reason (or knowledge) to be mutually exclusive, and have pointed out on many occasions that it’s intellectual suicide to hold otherwise.
when we base our expectations upon prior performance, that is not knowledge, but faith; when we base our belief upon inference from limited data, that is not knowledge, but faith.
The problem of induction? I’m not sure if that’s what you are referencing or not. A posteriori knowledge is alive and well I think.

I have a question: Can we have an individual experience with a personal God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus? It seems that Anglicans affirm this possibility as much as any other Christian denomination. I wonder if today this is something we are no longer to take seriously.
 
Originally Posted by Peter J
If I might ask a question slightly different from, but related to, the OP, I wonder if protestants are more amazed when they meet Catholic who won’t speak of a “personal God”, or if Catholics are more amazed when they meet protestants who believe the Christian religion is all about “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior”?
Nicely put because I think it points up the crux of the problem…In the above you are describing two very different things. In my mind, the term “personal god” does not equal “personal savior”. Allow me to explain…

Jesus as “personal Lord and Savior” is perfectly acceptable…Why? because Jesus has saved me personally. He is the savior of my person…my personal savior.

“God”, “The Trinity” on the other hand is NOT a “personal God”. Why because I do not own them or possess them. God possesses me, not the other way around.

Think if it like this…I have a “personal car” a “personal house” a “personal computer” etc. Each of these things is mine personally and they do the things I tell them to do (transport me, house me, compute or communicate my thoughts etc.). They are MINE personally.

God, the Father, is not “mine”, I am His. This is something quite different. I am to do as He bids me to do. This does not preclude a close “personal” relationship…but such a relationship is NOT = to a “personal god”.
I had parents who I love and obeyed…I never described them as my “personal parents”, they are simply my parents.
I have a boss who I respect and obey…I never describe him as my “personal boss”, he is simply my boss.
Why would I describe God as a “personal god”? He is simply my God.

So my guess is that the disconnect comes in at the point where “personal” is added to the conversation.

I hope the ramblings above make some sense…😉

Peace
James
It does make some sense, James–but I’ll add my :twocents: :

Not long ago, in a discussion on this very forum, I realized that we Catholics should, naturally, not object to Jesus as “personal Lord and savior.” We have that.

But we have so much more. “Personal” does not begin to be enough. We have Jesus as our intimate Lord and savior. At every sacrament, we come into intimate encounter with Jesus; in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus in the Real Presence, and become what we receive. It is this astounding intimacy that we glory in.

More, the intimacy of God is experienced particularly when we experience the intimacy of Jesus as Lord and savior, so your distinction, while having some validity, is transcended for me.

And, to answer Peter J’s question–I’m not sure which is more astounding. I don’t find either particularly unusual, unfortunately.
 
It does make some sense, James–but I’ll add my :twocents: :

Not long ago, in a discussion on this very forum, I realized that we Catholics should, naturally, not object to Jesus as “personal Lord and savior.” We have that.

But we have so much more. “Personal” does not begin to be enough. We have Jesus as our intimate Lord and savior. At every sacrament, we come into intimate encounter with Jesus; in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus in the Real Presence, and become what we receive. It is this astounding intimacy that we glory in.

More, the intimacy of God is experienced particularly when we experience the intimacy of Jesus as Lord and savior, so your distinction, while having some validity, is transcended for me.
AMEN

👍👍
 
We may have very good reasons to trust the research of an expert in the field, some of which we can independently verify.
I wholly agree that authorities can be trustworthy, that trust can be earnt by demonstration of merit. Still, experts are very frequently wrong, albeit more often on the smaller details than the larger ones.
Even so, it does not make faith irrational. I don’t find faith and reason (or knowledge) to be mutually exclusive, and have pointed out on many occasions that it’s intellectual suicide to hold otherwise.
I would much rather describe faith and reason as independent than as exclusive: they can coincide, operate in parallel, or diverge tremendously. On that basis, I would only say that faith is irrational in cases where it does contradict reason and evidence, something which does not generally happen in regard to metaphysics because the evidence is unavailable.
I have a question: Can we have an individual experience with a personal God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus?
I believe so. 😛

Still, as demonstrated by Pahnke’s Marsh Chapel Experiment, or the more-recent “God Helmet”, such experiences can be induced, which makes them rather ambiguous as evidence.
It seems that Anglicans affirm this possibility as much as any other Christian denomination. I wonder if today this is something we are no longer to take seriously.
Anglican variety aside, we have the opportunity to take our doubts seriously without necessarily giving up on our beliefs. Admitting the limitations of our knowledge does not oblige us to surrender either the desire or the attempt to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top